Article 371C of the Indian Constitution and the Tribal Communities of Manipur

 Constitutional Safeguards, Institutional Practice, and Contemporary Challenges

Abstract

Article 371C of the Indian Constitution was introduced as a special provision to safeguard the political, administrative, and cultural interests of the tribal communities inhabiting the hill areas of Manipur. Enacted in the context of Manipur’s transition to statehood, the provision sought to institutionalise participatory governance through the Hill Areas Committee (HAC) and to assign special responsibility to the Governor for hill administration. Despite its constitutional significance, Article 371C has remained under-implemented and institutionally weakened. This paper examines the historical origins, constitutional intent, institutional mechanisms, and practical limitations of Article 371C, situating it within Manipur’s broader ethnic and governance landscape. It argues that the erosion of Article 371C has contributed to tribal alienation and governance crises, and that strengthening its implementation is essential for democratic legitimacy and ethnic accommodation in Manipur.

Keywords: Article 371C, Manipur, Hill Areas Committee, tribal rights, asymmetric federalism, constitutional safeguards

1. Introduction

India’s constitutional framework recognizes the need for asymmetric federalism to address the diversity of its regions and communities. Special provisions under Articles 371A–371J reflect an acknowledgment that uniform governance structures may not adequately address the historical, cultural, and political realities of certain states. Among these, Article 371C occupies a distinctive place as a safeguard tailored specifically to the tribal hill areas of Manipur.

Manipur’s socio-political landscape is characterized by a sharp valley–hill divide, with the Meitei community largely inhabiting the valley and various tribal communities—Naga, Kuki-Zo and others—inhabiting the surrounding hills. This division has shaped administrative arrangements, land tenure systems, political representation, and ethnic relations since the colonial period. Article 371C was introduced to mitigate these structural imbalances and to ensure that the tribal communities of the hill areas were not politically marginalized within the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

This paper critically analyses Article 371C by examining its historical context, constitutional design, institutional mechanisms, and operational challenges, with particular emphasis on its implications for tribal communities.

2. Historical Background: Manipur and the Hill–Valley Divide

The hill–valley dichotomy in Manipur predates Indian independence. During the colonial period, the British administered the hills and the valley under different systems, recognizing the distinct customary laws and landholding patterns of tribal societies (Reid, 1942). While the valley followed a more centralized administrative structure, the hills were governed through indirect rule, respecting tribal chieftainship and customary institutions.

Following Manipur’s merger with the Indian Union in 1949, the integration of these diverse regions into a single administrative unit created tensions. Tribal communities expressed concerns about political domination by the valley majority, erosion of customary land rights, and neglect of hill-area development. These anxieties intensified during the debates on Manipur’s statehood, ultimately leading to the incorporation of Article 371C as a constitutional safeguard.

3. Constitutional Framework of Article 371C

3.1 Genesis and Legal Basis

Article 371C was inserted by the Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1971, in anticipation of Manipur attaining full statehood in 1972. The provision reflects a constitutional compromise aimed at balancing state unity with regional autonomy.

The text of Article 371C empowers the President of India to make orders for:

1. The constitution and functions of a Hill Areas Committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

2. Assigning special responsibility to the Governor for the administration of hill areas.

3. Requiring the Governor to submit reports to the President regarding hill-area administration.

The Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972 operationalizes this article.

3.2 The Hill Areas Committee (HAC)

The HAC consists of all Members of the Legislative Assembly elected from constituencies in the hill areas. It is mandated to consider and make recommendations on matters affecting the hill areas, including:

• Land and land revenue

• Forests

• Village administration

• Chieftainship and customary law

• Social customs and practices

• Development planning for hill areas

Any bill or policy concerning these subjects is expected to be referred to the HAC before being placed before the full Assembly.

3.3 Role of the Governor

Article 371C assigns the Governor a special responsibility to ensure the proper functioning of the HAC and the protection of hill-area interests. The Governor is also required to submit periodic reports to the President, thereby creating a constitutional link between hill administration and the Union government.

4. Significance for Tribal Communities

4.1 Political Representation and Voice

Article 371C institutionalizes collective political representation for hill-area legislators, ensuring that tribal voices are not fragmented or overridden in legislative processes. This is particularly significant in a state where demographic and political power is concentrated in the valley.

4.2 Protection of Customary Institutions

While Article 371C does not explicitly codify customary law, its subject-matter jurisdiction implicitly safeguards customary land ownership, village governance systems, and traditional leadership structures. For tribal communities, land is not merely an economic asset but the foundation of identity and social organization.

4.3 Developmental Justice

The provision acknowledges structural disadvantages faced by hill areas and legitimizes differentiated development planning. This reflects the constitutional principle of substantive equality, rather than formal equality.

5. Implementation Gaps and Institutional Weaknesses

Despite its constitutional intent, Article 371C has suffered from persistent implementation deficits.

5.1 Advisory Nature of the HAC

The HAC’s recommendations are not legally binding, allowing the state government to bypass or disregard them. This has reduced the committee to a procedural formality rather than an effective decision-making body.

5.2 Legislative Bypassing

There have been repeated allegations that bills affecting hill areas—particularly those related to land, administration, and development—have been introduced without meaningful consultation with the HAC. Such practices undermine the spirit of Article 371C.

5.3 Passive Role of the Governor

Although vested with special responsibility, Governors have rarely exercised independent discretion to safeguard hill interests. The reporting mechanism to the President has remained largely opaque and underutilized.

6. Article 371C in Comparative Perspective

Compared to Article 371A (Nagaland) or the Sixth Schedule, Article 371C provides relatively limited autonomy. While Nagaland enjoys constitutional protection over customary law and land ownership, and Sixth Schedule areas have autonomous district councils with legislative powers, Manipur’s hill areas remain dependent on an advisory mechanism.

This asymmetry has led tribal organizations to argue that Article 371C represents minimum constitutional accommodation, insufficient to address deep-rooted governance grievances.

7. Contemporary Relevance and Political Implications

In the context of recurring ethnic tensions, land disputes, and administrative crises in Manipur, Article 371C has regained political salience. Tribal civil society groups, student organizations, and political bodies increasingly frame their demands around:

• Strengthening the HAC’s authority

• Making consultation mandatory and enforceable

• Enhancing the Governor’s accountability

• Preventing legislative encroachment on hill land

For tribal communities, the dilution of Article 371C is perceived not merely as administrative neglect but as constitutional marginalization.

8. Conclusion

Article 371C embodies the Indian Constitution’s commitment to accommodating diversity within a unified political framework. However, its effectiveness has been undermined by weak institutional design, political reluctance, and inconsistent implementation.

Revitalizing Article 371C requires more than procedural reforms; it demands political recognition of the distinct historical and cultural position of Manipur’s tribal communities. Strengthening the HAC, clarifying the Governor’s role, and ensuring genuine legislative consultation are essential steps toward restoring trust and democratic legitimacy in Manipur’s governance.

References

Baruah, S. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press.

Chaube, S. K. (1999). Hill politics in North-East India. Orient Longman.

Government of India. (1971). The Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act, 1971.

Government of India. (1972). The Manipur Legislative Assembly (Hill Areas Committee) Order, 1972.

Haokip, T. (2013). Politics of identity and conflict in Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(38), 54–60.

Reid, R. (1942). History of the frontier areas bordering on Assam. Government of Assam.

Singh, M. P. (2018). Constitution of India. Oxford University Press.

T. Zamlunmang Zou